DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.43 of 18
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 15.03.2018
DATE OF ORDER: -21.03.2018
Ashok Aggarwal aged 52 years son of Shri late Bhim Sain Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s Bhim Sain Aman Kumar, 62, New Grain Market, Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s G.H. Singhania Foods Mfg. Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 11, Rajender Nagar, Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) through its Prop/Partner/authorized signatory.
- Sunil Chaudhary, Marketing Head M/s G.H. Singhania Foods Mfg. Pvt. Limited, plot no. 11, Rajender Nagar, Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP).
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Arvind Dahiya, Advocate, for complainant.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is a growing businessman and was having goods faith on the version of the account. It is alleged that the complainant had sent a sum of Rs. 1,00,035/- through RTGS and upon which the accused have sent products vide invoice no. R1-77 dated 30.7.2015. It is alleged that it was utter shock to the complainant when the complainant see bill and while comparing the products with the bill, then it came to the notice that weight mention in the bill and weight mention on the packet is different. The complainant contacted to the accused on his mobile phone and tells him about the problem upon which he assured that do not worry, he would send their salesman and ASM for marketing and bill then the complainant at his own level do the market. It is further alleged that after long when no salesman or ASM was sent by the accused then the complainant contacted again to the accused and told that whole products are started to return back from the market, upon which he asked the complainant to came here and to meet with the OPs so that the matter would be shorted out. It is alleged that after lapse of more than two years, the OPs neither taken back their products nor paid single penny to the complainant due to which the complainant has suffered a lot mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence this complaint.
2. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. In view of the facts stated in the complaint, the preset complaint has been filed by the complainant for not performing the part of contract by the respondents. The complainant has only filed the copy of legal notice dated 27.11.2017. No other document has been filed by the complainant in support of his contention. A consumer complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Fora under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986, (as amended upto date) herein after called “Act”. The complainant must be a consumer as defined in Section 2 (d) of the “Act”. The Section 2 (d) of the “Act” reads as under:-
(d) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
From the bare perusal of the definition of ‘consumer’ the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the respondents. The complainant deposited Rs. 1,00,035/- with respondents and the respondents sent the products to the complainant vide bill dated 30.7.2015. The goods supplied by the respondents were not according to the bill. The complainant marketed the products of the respondents but the products were returned by the purchaser to the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint for the payment of Rs. 1,00,035/- paid by him to the respondent alongwith interest and compensation etc. on various allegations made by the complainant against the respondents. The complainant has purchased the goods for re-sale purposes. The complainant also does not fall within the “explanation” of the said section regarding the commercial purpose. According to the said “explanation”, ‘the commercial purpose does not include used by a person of goods bought and used by him’. From the facts as stated by the complainant in his complaint, he has purchased the goods from the respondents were not used by him and the same were sold by the complainant to various consumers.
3. Considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the “Act”. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. The complainant shall be at liberty to take legal recourse according to the provisions of law, if so advised. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 21.03.2018. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member.
